How was playing civilization on 1991?

My contact with civilization was in the late 2001 i guess, maybe a bit earlier, didnt like it at all, few months later saw civ3 and got hooked to it. Now many years later, i play civ1 on my Phone and i really enjoy it, as a time killer, while wating for apoinments or things like that.

Now videogames are easier to learn, we just have to use Google to find a guide about a level we are stuck in, or to find some tricks, and even possible exploits. But back in 1991 Internet wasnt that common so I bet many first civ players. Had to learn the game by trial and error. So I would like to know how it was for that people... The first victory, the first game played. Etc. "just for nostalgia"

 

i was younger than 10 when my dad bought home that big box from microprose with a CD (imagine back then a CD!!!) with the word CIV in it.
i didnt know how to read back then and even if i did, there was no point on reading because the game was in a eird foreigh language
i remember that selecting technilogy was particularly interesting. because the only thing i wanted was to conquer the world. and the wheel was the tech i was hoping to get out of of that list of random things in the screen.

it took me very little time to realise matheamthics, wheel, bronse working and horseback riding was the techs essnetial to make stuff move in the screen and kill other stuff in the screen.

i have been playing civ 1 on and off for more than 20 years now.
the only major breakthrough in the game was when i realised tax rate could be redistributed making science come up faster.
i played many years without knowing the secrets of this forum. but somehow i always noticed the republic governments always got tech and more money than others without randomly collapsing. it took many playthoughs and a hint from a friend to finally realise trade arrows was the thing that could generate faster science.

all in all. i reckon it took me nearly 10 years of experimental playing to realise the most basic exploits of the game.
rush to republic, add some luxuries, make your cities go into constant baby boom. and get woman surfrage ASAP to conter the unhapiness penalty of having units outside your cities.

i reckon my first victury at this game was many years after that microprose box arrived in the house. in fact i woudl dare to bet the box and cd were long lost before the victury happened. I learned how to make backups of the game into flopy disks long before i ever completed the game.

 

Wow tuga... I just cant imagine playing the game for 10 years not knowing many things. I mean im not so tolerant to frustration. So if i dont understand a game i loose interest. But i still remember myself playing tomb raider and commandos behind enemy lines without any guides or stuff, from the Internet. pure trial and error. I bet your first victory was very satisfaying after many years trying. And of course every time you learned something New about the game should have been very exciting... About the box and the cd.. I bet that moment with the bigh micropose box when your dad arrived home with the cd, had to be magical... I still have some videogames boxes.... And sometimes when i look at them i remember the time when i bought it or the very first games played

 

I only got it in 1992. Lost my first game in less than 100 turns when the Mongols (in Romanized formation) marched into Babylon, but ... then the archeology screen came up, telling me that centuries later the evidence that my ancient civilization had roads and pottery would amaze startled scientist and they would come across a mysterious tablet: Hammurabi would return! Well, return he did, beating the Indians to Alpha Centauri in my second game. Very satisfying.

By the way, you are in good company when you claim that the more recent games are more accessible. I'm at a loss as to why so many people say that. The Civ1 manual was excellent and worth reading cover to cover. The various mechanics were really simple, it was only their interaction that created complexity. The more recent games show up with ever more complex and ever more poorly documented mechanics. Did seperate mechanics for Great People really improve the game? Is Bach more memorable when treated as a world wonder or when used as a Great Scientist for whatever bonus he gave you last time? If we are lucky enough to get a manual at all, it takes the author some 50 pages to get to the substance of anything at which point he seems to lose interest in the game and hurries to wrap things up.

 

Well now, it didn't hurt. I am thinking about Donald Rumsfeld and his "things that we don't know that we don't know." The absence of instant, centralized discussion forums in the world meant they were not missed. Everyone was a happy civver. Emperor was considered (even by Sid and the writers of Rome on 640k) to be almost insurmountably difficult, and that was that. Turns out it's not; it's just that the number of viable strategies is constrained and, pursuant to what @Verrucosus just said, people had to pool their know-how to nail it.

 

I agree with you... About the fact that Unknown things arent missed. But in my case, as i said, im not so tolerant to frustration. If i cant understand something i get bored and just quit... Ironically, in my job, personal life etc, i like to learn New things constantly and once i feel theres not much left to learn i start getting bored. But for video games, if its too frustrating, "unbeatable" or i feel stuck, then i usually quit, so I can imagine myself trying to Beat the higher levels of the game just to get smashed by The ai and not having a source of information, probably i would have lost interest eventually, specially since as you say, even the manual states that emperor level is not meant to be won consistently. So if i put myself in that context, after getting stuck at Prince or king and not being able to Beat, emperor i would have just quited. In fact the first time i played civ1 years ago, after some games getting bullied by The ai, not knowing why some of my cities were very productive while others not, not understanding the interface, (i must admit that i didnt even took the time to read the manual, nor tried to look for information about the game) i just simply ditched it, for "being hard to understand, besides having uggly graphics", months later i played civ3 and got hooked.

 

its hard to pick up civ1 these days, theres other alternatives (excluding the extra 5 iterations) that have similar (or even arguably better) mechanics with much more pleasing graphics and user interface where you can make plenty of asusmptions that are correct.
i suspect i would not have touched neither Civ1 neither colonisation if i ever came across those games after 98. since there was plenty of alternatives by then that would make you not give it a second glance.
but in my experience, there was 2 games in my house when i was a kid in the early 90's. Civ1 and F15-strike eagle.
f15 was incredibly dificult to play, and you needed to take some special steps to install it and reboot the pc into the game because after loading windows/dos the OS would consume resources needed by the game to work.
to top that up, the enjoyment really required a joystick which was also tricky to setup, specially when your 6-8 years old and dont know the language of the manual/game.
Civ was a matter of clicking a few buttons and there was a white settler in the middle of the dark. and back in those days. a colorfull screen and the ability to affect what was displayed by your decisions was fascinating to a kid like myself.
civ1 is clearly a nostalgia game for me. i still think its an amasing set of mechanics and it still brings joy to my dull nights for a period of a few weeks every year
but personally, i am a firm believer that colonisation is a much superior turn based strategy game from the same era. and the best game that ive expirienced from sid meyer would be the original alpha centaury. where unlike civ. you can fine tune the military units you produce allowing you to build outdated units for peanuts if you decide to spam the map. (yes, theres minor details that make that statement not 100% correct. but you get the general idea)

 

I must say that I have played Colonisation for plenty of hours as a child, but I have never mastered it and always failed miserably because the home force was too strong.

 

I also played colonization many years ago. I liked it, but for me it was even more complicated than civ 1 lol... So while i liked many of the mechanics i decided to stay away from it... Maybe i should try it again some of these days

 

I first got civ in '94 or '95, when I was 8 or 9 years old. My English was at a very basic level back then so I ended up playing the game with a dictionary on my lap, slowly learning things other than how to build units and kill enemies... Like for example that buildings aren't there just to be built, but that they actually serve one purpose or another, that you can control taxes and happiness, have revolutions, etc.

In the late nineties I already had access to the net and found this site (and other civ resources), discovering a lot of things that I didn't know about the game. That's probably the best thing about it -- there's always something new to find out. Even today, when the hackers here have civ basically disassembled down to the core, we still don't know everything about it. And that's an almost 30-year-old game that fits on two floppies.

In retrospect, civ certainly helped me develop my English language skills faster and it fed my already existing interest in history and the way the world works. It's as much a children's encyclopedia, as it is a complex game for adults.

 

Personally I have grown up with Atari and Commodore. The first PC we got had a hard drive with unbelievable 100 Megabyte space on it. The 3,5 floppy disk of Sid Meiers Civilization needed 2 of them.

The games of my youth have been
Civilization
Colonization
Dune I and II
SIM City
Pirates
Der Patrizier
Monkey Island series and the whole LucasArts Adventures

All these games have been remodeled, reloaded, rearranged, graphical pimped up and voiced.
I played civ 2, Call to Power, Civ 3, Civ 4 including Colonization and come to the conclusion that the original Charme of DOS gaming needs no graphics and no video sequences.

The best thing about it is that you come to progress relatively soon. You play offline, you can go into detail and try out whatever you like not investing too much time.

Well, it is the nostalgia, I guess. But I say that the original games are still top.

 

I wonder why no one has gone back and given Civ I a facelift? They're pixel art, right? Can't a mod make it prettier?

 

Keeping the game technique in its original state only touching the design, sounds like a good idea.

But there is a fangame that bases on colonization called freecol, for example. Good work, besides. Then I remember the freeciv project where you have countless possibilities.

In the end, trying to improve or redesign the original always kills the nostalgia. The Charme of 1991 graphic design is part of the feeling.

But giving the icons a little facelift and debugging the script, changing the oldfashioned text style, adding facts and knowledge from our experience to the civilopedia, this sounds like a project for my retirement.

If anybody is faster get it started and let us know. Maybe Sid himself can help...

 

I was 10 and played it at a friends house first. CGA graphics.
Shortly after we got the game somehow and the first time i accidently pressed the VGA button and the graphics blew my mind. The coastline was alive! The water in the wonders was moving!